[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Jurassic forest in DC



In a message dated 97-02-05 03:01:58 EST, Josh Smith writes,

>       The Passaic Formation is Carnian and Norian (Late Triassic).

 Paul Olsen of Lamont  places the Passaic Fm. as Earliest Jurassic, 210-205
Ma. I don't have the ref though but will try to locate it. 

>  
>       OK.  Enough of this.  There is currently no published data that 
>  is valid that supports the assignment of the _Dilophosaurus_ sp. to the 
>  large "theropod" tracks of the Newark Supergroup called _Eubrontes_.  
>  Given the sample size of _Dilophosaurus_ there is NO data whatsoever 
>  supporting the assignment of _Dilophosaurus_ to _Grallator_.  In fact, 
>  and this stuff is still within the bowels of the great publishing 
>  machines, the most current data that I know of doesn't support the 
>  assignment of any specific trackmaker to these ichnotaxa, 
>
>but only states >  that they are theropod.

As did I. 
  

After careful review of my post which prompted Dr. Smith's irate reply, I
found no mention of or allusion to Dilophosaurus sp. or Eubrontes to the
'grallator' type theropod tracks. In fact, I purposely enclosed the the
ichnogenus name in quotes to denote a degree of uncertainty, Further, I was
careful to also state that "we __may__ have even recovered a prosauropd
track..." , also a carefully worded statement  so as to not elicit responces
such as this! 

Since I was relating an _anecdote_I did not think  I needed my asbestos
underwear!
;-)

>       Sorry.  It just irritates me when people (or institutions) lable 
>  a footprint as having been made by a certain animal when they have no way 
>  to support it.
>  
I wholeheartedly agree! And after re-reading the initiial post that started
this thread, my  (anecdotal) reply and the responce to it,  I fail to see
where one would think this has happened. ;-)

Regards,
Thomas R. Lipka
Paleontological/Geological Studies